Valley Spirit: March 4, 1868Go To Page : 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |
She is a Working Girl
(Column 07)Summary: Opposes those who say it is undignified for a woman to work. Believes women suffering from adversity should have the right to work to stave off poverty regardless of decorum.
Full Text of Article:
We have frequently heard the above remark, and it always excites in our mind a sentiment of ineffable contempt for the worthless piece of humanity that uttered it. It is a source of deep regret to us that it may ever be our duty to deal harshly with any portion of the fair sex who maintain a reputable standing in society, but there are some, and not a few either, who, though their fame be unspotted, are so filled with envy, jealousy, hatred toward their sex, who happened to be less favored by fortune, but more perfectly moulded and finished by nature than themselves, that their hearts are gall, their souls are wormwood, their breath is pestilence, whenever they can make it convenient to speak of them.
These are they who, with a sarcastic leer, and scornful turn of the nose, stigmatize as "nothing but working girls," such young females as have the moral courage and virtue to work with their hands for an honest livelihood, rather than be dependent, destitute or disreputable.
It is sometimes applied opprobriously to married ladies, after the following manner: "Did you ever see the like, how Mrs.------- dresses herself and children of late? I knew her when she was a working girl, and her husband a poor working mechanic and when he worked for my father. Now they have got a little something in the world, and they stick themselves up as somebodies. It is always just so with such creatures, as soon as they get a little in the world, they forget the poverty they sprang from, and then begin to put on airs of gentility. I can't bear them, for my part!"
Reader, if you are a young man, and should hear anything like the above sentiment uttered by a young lady to whom you are paying your addresses, let that be your last visit. Even if you are under promise of marriage, it would be better to break off and incur the penalty of breach of promise, than to be united to one so utterly devoid of kind hearted sympathy for those of her sex thus virtuously struggling with adversity, and who holds it as disreputable in a young lady without a fortune or able friends to draw upon and relies on her own physical faculties for support, in an honest, useful vocation.
Impeachment a Fact
(Column 01)Summary: Gives a very negative view of the impending impeachment of President Johnson. Details many legal reasons why impeachment against him is ludicrous. The editors show particular distaste for the actions of Stanton. Ends by warning of the dangers impeachment implies for the rest of the nation.
Full Text of Article:A Few Words to Radicals
The work of impeachment has been begun. The nation is doomed to undergo the intense anxiety with which the most important trial in American experience must necessarily be attended. A president of the United States is about to be arraigned for the first time at the bar of the Senate, charged with the commission of high crimes and misdemeanors. It becomes every citizen to ask, and not to rest until he has satisfactorily answered, the question. Why is this? How comes it that such an effort is being made to drag President Johnson from the Executive Chair? The answer is simple, plain and truthful. Because he has sought to defend the Constitution from the assaults of partisan fanatics. Because he has interposed his influence and constitutional authority to preserve the dignity of his great office. Because he has thus far successfully thwarted the revolutionary designs of Congress, which were intended to establish military despotisms, in the interest of the Radical party, over the States lately in rebellion.
Up to the issuing of the order removing Stanton from the War Office, and appointing General Thomas Secretary of war ad interim, there was, confessedly, no ground for impeachment. Congress distinctly acknowledged this, by twice deliberately resolving that they would not undertake this work. The issuing of the order referred to, is now laid as proper ground for impeachment. It is contended that it is such an open, wilful violation of the Tenure-of-Office-Bill as admits of no defence, and the Radical papers are asserting, with an assurance that smacks of positive knowledge on the subject, that the Radical Senators will, without doubt, convict the President, and remove him from office.
The impeachment of a President is a very serious matter. It ought to be resorted to only where the offence is, not only heinous in its nature, but where it can be so clearly made out as to leave no doubt as to its character, and the certainty of its commission. Surely it ought not to be attempted when the Chief Executive has only been guilty of "peccadilloes," which the New York Tribune asserted but a week ago, was all that could be charged and proven against Andrew Johnson. If the process of impeachment, as intended by the framers of the Constitution, is to be used as a means of getting rid of a President obnoxious to a party, then we may safely predict that our Republic is destined to undergo frequent disturbances of this kind, because, whenever a Congress had its will opposed, and its laws vetoed by a resident who dares to have an opinion of his own different from theirs, soon remove the obstacle by him to a Senate two-thirds of which are men who are known to entertain opinions in direct antagonism to those entertained by him, and who will cheerfully become the instrument to remake the President, whom the will of the Sovereign people of the United States has placed in the chair of the Chief Executive. Shall Congress, on trivial charges out of pure partisan malignity, with indecent hate, be permitted to erect itself into a tyrannical Directory, assuming to itself absolute power, and undertaking to rob both the Executive and Judicial Departments of the government of the debts vested in them by the Federal Constitution? This is a question which every man should, and must ponder upon, and decide for himself. It is not only whether Andrew Johnson shall be impeached and removed from office on such a frivolous, groundless charge, but whether his impeachment and removal of Andrew Johnson once become an accomplished fact, and republican government in America will be a thing of the past. The Republic will die amid the general scramble for political power, in which everybody will claim the privilege of acting "outside the Constitution."
And now, for what is the President to be impeached? For removing Edwin M. Stanton from his position as Secretary of War. It is claimed that this action is a palpable violation of the Tenure-of-Office-Bill, which the last Congress enacted for the purpose of tying the hands of Andrew Johnson. In the first place, every unprejudiced mind will see from the message of the President, which we publish to-day, that Stanton's case is not within the act of 1867, regulating the tenure of certain civil officers, and known as the Tenure-of-Office-Bill. By this act, the tenure of officers is limited "for and during the term of the President by whom they may have been appointed, and for one month thereafter." Stanton was the appointee of President Lincoln. He was never re-appointed by President Johnson. He was, therefore, subject to removal at anytime, provided there was no previous law upon the subject which defined the term of his office. It is conceded on all hands that no such law existed. Consequently, the President, in removing Stanton, is not guilty of a violation of this act of 1867. So far, the President has met the Radicals upon their own ground, and shown that there is no shadow of excuse for the impeachment project.
But there is a higher ground than this.--It is Edwin M. Stanton's own ground, namely, that even if the action of the President should be decided to come within the provisions of the Tenure-of-office bill, still the President is guilty of no offence, for the reason that the Tenure-of-office bill is unconstitutional, and, therefore, absolutely null and void. It is true that the power to appoint certain officers of the Government can not be exercised by the President except "by and with the advice and consent of the Senate," but his power to remove the same officers has never been called in question. The right to remove has been claimed and exercised by every former President.--It has been sanctioned by Congress. It has been affirmed by the Supreme Court. The Constitution has been always construed to clothe the President with this power. Nobody ever dreamed before of attempting to impeach the Chief Executive for the exercise of this right. His orders of removal have been always obeyed by those to whom they were directed, and acquiesced in by the people. When Congress first proposed to put this limitation upon the President's power, Stanton was a member of the Cabinet. He attended its meetings regularly.--His opinion was asked for, and given in regard to this very bill. He pronounced it unconstitutional. He suggested to the President the points of objection which were made in the message vetoing the bill. The act was passed over the President's veto. And now, Stanton seeks to retain possession of the War Department by virtue of this very bill which he advised the President to veto on the ground of its unconstitutionality. Nay more, he goes before the Chief Justice of the District of Columbia, and takes his solemn oath, that Adjutant General Lorenzo Thomas, in accepting the position of Secretary of War ad interim, has violated the Constitution and laws of the United States, and thus subjected himself to the palns and penalties of the Tenure-of-office-Bill, when Stanton himself, according to the opinion given to the President, actually believed that the Tenure-of-office-Bill was not then a law binding upon Gen. Thomas because it was in violation of the Constitution. Does not this look like perjury in Mr. Stanton? Certainly no less tenable ground was ever put forth upon which to punish any one. It will be an eternal disgrace to the American nation to allow the removal of its Chief Executive on such flimsy pretexts. But the Radicals have resolve to impeach the President nevertheless. They care nothing for the honor of the nation. They are simply in search of power as a means of procuring the spoils.--The public mind is anxious upon the subject. When will the trial begin? Will Chief Justice Chase be ready to proceed as soon as the Senate is ready? Will Andrew Johnson plead to the jurisdiction? Will he refuse to be judged by such an irregular and fragmentary body? If so, will the country be deluged with the blood of another civil war? If not, will indecent haste mark the proceedings? Have the Senators, who are to sit as judges, constituting a hight Court of impeachment, prejudged the case? Is the trial to be a mere farce? And how will it end? All these questions are in men's mouths, and various opinions in regard to them are entertained and uttered.
Our own mind is clear, that the Senate of the United States as at present constituted is utterly incompetent to try the President.--The constitution never contemplated a trial by a body which excludes from its deliberations, twenty one Senators who are as clearly entitled to their seats as any one of the Senators who intends to sit in judgement upon the President. The constitution of the United States runs thus, "The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State," &c, and again, "the Senate shall have the sole power to try all the impeachments." What Senate? Why, the Senate of the United States composed of two Senators from each State.--And so, we say, whenever the states of Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Texas, and Virginia are accorded their full representation of two Senators from each State, to which they are con-constitutionally entitled, Andrew Johnson ought to appear to answer, at the bar of the Senate, to any articles which may be preferred against him, but no sooner. But, he ought to be prepared for the consequences of such a refusal. If he intends to demur to the jurisdiction, and has not arranged appropriate measures and means of defence, he will find himself in a fort, and another man in his place within twenty four hours after his demurrer is entered.
If however, he concludes to recognize the legality of the tribunal which will undertake to try him, he should guard against any effort to suspend him during trial. Besides, he ought to take every possible step to procure a decision of the highest judicial tribunal in the mind upon the constitutionality of the Tenure-of-office-Bill, before the Senate is ready to take a vote upon the question of his guilt.
The fight between the President and Stanton is not our fight. Andrew Johnson does not hold his office by Democratic votes. He was made President by the support of the Republican party. As to the personal issues involved, Democrats might afford to sit in silence, and witness the progress of the contest. But far higher interests are at stake. A question of principle is involved. The hitherto unquestioned constitutional right of the President to remove a Cabinet officer at his pleasure is assailed. An effort is being made to restrain the Executive in the sphere of his legitimate action, so as to make him utterly powerless. Nay more, the design is to remove the President from office, so as to get rid of the greatest obstacle in the way of delivering the Southern States over to negro supremacy, and thus securing the perpetuation of Radical power in the nation. Let Democrats prepare themselves for any contingency that may arise. No man knows now what a day may bring forth. Republican institutions are now undergoing their severest trial.--Through all the gloomy period of our bloody civil war, constitutional liberty was never exposed to such fearful perils as those which now threaten it. Let it be our business to watch and be ready always. If forcible resistance must be made to the lawless proceedings of Congress, we must act like men who "know their rights, and knowing, dare maintain them."
(Column 02)Summary: Mocks the Radicals because they want to keep Stanton and not Lorenzo Thomas in the War Department, even though the former used to be a Democrat while the latter used to be a Whig and Republican. Talks a lot about both men's backgrounds and political affiliations. Even jokingly claims the Radicals, because of their actions, must feel that only Democrats are competent to fill government posts.
Full Text of Article:Articles of Impeachment
Isn't it a little strange that the Radicals should be so greatly enraged at President Johnson? Consider, for a moment, what he has done. He has removed, or attempted to remove, Edwin M. Stanton from the office of Secretary of War. He has also nominated Thomas Ewing to fill Stanton's place. Now what is there in this that ought to excite any member of the Radical party? Edwin M. Stanton used to be, or at least professed to be, a Democrat; and it is beyond question that, when secession was ripening, he told Senator Brown, of Mississippi, a far more bitter secessionist than Jeff Davis, that he was right, and advised him to go home and rebel against the Lincoln government. Thomas Ewing used to be a Whig, and on the dissolution of that party he became a Republican. The Whigs of Ohio thought him worthy to represent that State in the United States Senate. Gen. Harrison thought him worthy of a seat in his Cabinet. President Fillmore also gave him a seat in the Cabinet. He is the father of the gallant Union General Thomas Ewing Jr., as well as the father-in-law of General Sherman. He never was a Democrat and never advised anybody to rebel against the government. Too old to take the field himself, he put the war-harness on his son's back and sent him forth from the paternal roof to fight for the Union.
Now, gentlemen of the Radical party, nearly all of you who were voters a dozens years ago were Whigs, and all of you profess to be Union men. Why is it, then, that you prefer Stanton, a renegade Democrat, who advised Senator Brown to go home and fight against Lincoln, to Thomas Ewing, an old Whig and Republican, who stood by Lincoln all through his administration? Sit down a moment and cool yourselves off and think over the matter, and then give us a good reason, if you can, why you should rave against President Johnson for turning out a renegade Democrat and putting a genuine old Whig and Republican in his place. Are Democrats so much better than Whigs or Republicans that you must needs get in a great passion and call upon Congress to turn Andrew Johnson out of the Presidential chair because he prefers the latter to the former? If you are of opinion that in order to qualify a man for high public office he must be, or at least must have been a Democrat, hadn't you better join us yourselves? You may someday be called to fill high public offices, and it would mortify you very much to be compelled to decline on the ground that, as you had never been Democrats, you did not possess the requisite honesty and capability.
Thomas Ewing is an older and more experienced man than Edwin M. Stanton. He is more distinguished and abler than Stanton, and has held more high public offices. If he is not therefore fully as competent to administer the affairs of the War Department, it must all be owing to the lamentable fact that he never was a Democrat!
This is rather more than we were disposed to claim for the Democratic party. We had supposed it possible for a lifelong opponent of our party to be fitted for a Cabinet office, but the voice of the Radicals appears to be unanimous in opposition to this supposition. Thanking them for the compliment, it only remains for us to urge all of them who cherish political aspirations to join the Democracy at once and qualify themselves for the possibilities of the future.
(Column 03)Summary: The paper prints a synopsis of the articles of impeachment.Radical Fear of the Courts
(Column 03)Summary: The paper asserts that the Radicals are attempting to prevent the courts from ruling on the constitutionality of the Tenure of Office Act.Dr. Tomkins
(Column 03)Summary: Dr. Fred Tomkins lectured in Chambersburg's Lutheran Church on "Our Duty in the Present Crisis of the World's History," and in Repository Hall on the "Battle Field of Gettysburg." The paper pronounced his talks "excruciatingly dull." He also delivered sermons in the Lutheran and Methodist churches.Grant In Favor of Negro Supremacy
(Names in announcement: Dr. Fred Tomkins)
(Column 04)Summary: Comments on Grant's revocation of Hancock's order suspending members of the New Orleans City Council, most of whom were black. Claims this action proves Grant is in favor of black supremacy over whites in order to gain the Republican nominations for President.
Full Text of Article:From South-West Virginia
General Grant has at length sold himself, body and soul, to the Radicals. He comes out now, not only in favor of negro-suffrage, but also in favor of negro-supremacy. Not long ago, General Hancock removed nine of the members of the City Council of New Orleans for disobedience of his orders. Two of this number were white men and seven were negroes. General Grant has recently revoked this order, and thereby re-instated these refractory colored gentlemen in their positions as City Fathers. To what depths will a man sink himself now-a-days, in order to gain popularity with the party whose nomination he is courting. Citizens of Franklin County, you who desire white men to rule America, will you support a man for President, who thus places negroes in the high positions of the land to the exclusion of white men, even when doing so, it becomes necessary to humiliate a gallant officer like General Hancock?
(Column 04)Summary: This letter from Abingdon gives a description of the natural resources of South-West Virginia, a topic of particular interest to potential emigrants.Message From the President
(Column 05)Summary: The paper prints Johnson's address to Congress explaining his removal of Edwin Stanton from the War Department.
A New Police Officer
(Column 01)Summary: Nicholas Uglow, Jr., has been appointed police officer for Wolffstown by the Town Council.Death of a Former Resident
(Names in announcement: Nicholas UglowJr.)
(Column 01)Summary: Sarah Stevenson, widow of John Stevenson and former resident of Chambersburg, died on July 30th in Lexington, Illinois.Rev. Henry Ward Beecher's Lecture
(Names in announcement: Sarah Stevenson, John Stevenson)
(Column 01)Summary: Beecher delivered his lecture on "Work and the Workman" to a packed hall. The paper declared it a "masterpiece," praising its "clear thought" and "practical hints." "No one could rise from his seat, after listening to its words of counsel and instruction without forming resolutions to act a better and a noble part in life."Important Action of the Town Council
(Column 02)Summary: The paper applauds the Town Council's decision to hold elections to approve construction of a Market House and purchase of a Steam Fire Engine. The paper supports a Market House, and asserts that Chambersburg loses thousands each year "by not having an excellent Market."Rev. Dr. Talmage's Lecture
(Column 02)Summary: Rev. Dr. Talmage delivered his lecture entitled "The Rock on Which People Split" to a packed Repository Hall. The paper declares him "one of the most entertaining lecturers to whom it has been our pleasure to listen."A Railroad Meeting
(Names in announcement: Rev. Dr. Talmage)
(Column 02)Summary: The "best citizens" of Quincy attended a meeting to discuss a proposed railroad from Scotland and Mt. Alto, via Waynesboro, to the Maryland line.
Origin of Article: Waynesboro RecordSudden Death
(Column 02)Summary: Mrs. Frey, wife of George Frey and daughter of George Cook of Upton died suddenly on February 24th. She was interred in the German Reformed graveyard of Upton. "She was a young and interesting wife and an affectionate daughter, and her early demise will be mourned by a large circle of friends."
(Names in announcement: Mrs. Frey, George Frey, George Cook)Origin of Article: Greencastle EchoMarried
(Column 04)Summary: John W. Elder and Miss Clara Huber, both of Chambersburg, were married on March 3rd in Shippensburg by the Rev. J. Hassler.Married
(Names in announcement: John W. Elder, Clara Huber, Rev. J. Hassler)
(Column 04)Summary: Samuel Holler, of Fairview, and Miss Barbara Childes, of St. Thomas, were married at Fisher's Hotel on February 27th by the Rev. James M. Bishop.Died
(Names in announcement: Samuel Holler, Barbara Childes, James M. Bishop)
(Column 04)Summary: Curtis Fortna died near Strasburg, Letterkenny Township, on February 24th. He was 59 years old.Died
(Names in announcement: Curtis Fortna)
(Column 04)Summary: Mary Ann Lowry, infant daughter of David M. and Mary Ann Lowry, died on February 25th in Quincy.
(Names in announcement: Mary Ann Lowry, David M. Lowry)
Description of Page: Advertisements and agricultural information appear on this page.